PeriodicallyPedantic

In old plays and stories, such as Romeo and Juliet, poisons are depicted as being fairly fast acting.

Would they really have had access to such poison, or was it simply creative license? What would a realistic depiction of a poison of that era be?

I'm trying to figure out a ruling for something one of my players wants to do. They're invisible, but they took a couple of seemingly non-attack actions that my gut says should break inviz.

Specifically, they dumped out a flask of oil, and then used a tinderbox to light it on fire. Using a tinderbox isn't an attack, nor is emptying a flask, although they are actions , and the result of lighting something on fire both seems like an attack and something that would dispell inviz.

I know that as DM I can rule it however I want, but I'm fairly inexperienced and I don't wanna go nerfing one of my players tools just because it feels yucky to me personally without understanding the implications.

Is this an attack or is there another justification for breaking inviz that is there some RAW clause I didn't see? Or should this be allowed?

I know I have small hands but c'mon. Flagship phones these days are strait up small tablets, not even what we'd have called on phablets 15 years ago.

I know it's what people buy, but I'm still sad that if I want a phone that small then I have to deal with camera and display a couple gens old

That was quick

Ontario must never be forgiven for this

And Jamaican patty

I can't stop listening to this.
I feel like I need to go play chess now. Idk if it's AI generated or not, but it's so catchy

I'm probably going to judge you if you say Holocene, without an interesting non-trivial reason.